Alec Baldwin’s case on track for trial in July as judge denies request to dismiss
Alec Baldwin’s case on track for trial in July as judge denies request to dismiss
The involuntary manslaughter case against Alec Baldwin is on track for trial in July after a judge denied a request to dismiss the case on complaints that key evidence was damaged by the FBI during forensic testing.
A court ruling on Friday put an involuntary manslaughter case against Alec Baldwin on track for trial in early July as a judge denied a request to dismiss the case on complaints that key evidence was damaged by the FBI during forensic testing.
Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer sided with prosecutors in rejecting a motion to dismiss the case.
Defense attorneys had argued that the gun in the fatal shooting was heavily damaged during FBI forensic testing before it could be examined for possible modifications or problems that might exonerate the actor-producer.
The ruling removes one of the last hurdles before prosecutors can bring the case to trial with jury selection scheduled for July 9 in Santa Fe.
You're viewing a single thread.
-
It kind of feels like they’re throwing Alec Baldwin under the bus for this. Obviously the quartermaster needs to get in trouble
-
She already did. Pretending the guy that pulled the trigger and is a producer doesn't also share blame is disingenuous though.
-
For real, everything Alec Baldwin comes up there's always this what about game for blaming other people. They've already punished other people, he's next.
-
I don't disagree, but I do wonder where the line is. Is there no room for accidents? Is someone to be on the line after Alec Baldwin?
-
I suppose.
-
-
Prosecutors allege that the two did not follow proper safety protocols in a number of ways. "On the day of the shooting alone, evidence shows that no less than a dozen acts, or omissions of recklessness, occurred in the short time prior to lunch and the time of the shooting, and this does not include the reckless handling of the firearm by Baldwin," the statement says. "Baldwin, by act or omission or failure to act in his position as a producer, directly contributed and/or failed to mitigate numerous reckless and dangerous actions during a very short time period."
-
If by "throwing under the bus" you mean punishing those involved, especially the one that pulled the trigger on a firearm that did not malfunction, then yeah we are. I'll never understand why people defend him so much, he made a huge awful mistake, and just like anyone else he needs to see the consequences.
-
Because in the film industry, actors are not the ones responsible when it comes to firearms. There are armourers/props, people, and even assistant directors who are responsible for on set safety, actors and crew trust other departments to do their job correctly and safely. There are so many rules and regulations for how guns are handled on set, on every set I have worked on guns were locked in a safe with the armourer being the only one with the key, they would have to have their eyes on the weapon at all times with no exceptions when it was outdside the safe. You don't hold an actor responsible if there is a stunt gone wrong or a piece of the set falls down because it isn't their job unless he was behaving recklessly or outrageously. Although he may hold some culpability due to his role as a producer and the financial stuff, i.e., budget cutting, hiring inexperienced crew, etc. I can't stand the man myself, but he is not the one who is most responsible for this incident
-
This is more because he was the producer. IIRC Baldwin said to ignore a bunch of that safety stuff.
-
Ultimately the person holding the gun is responsible for what happens with said gun.
-
That's not true on movie sets though. Actors rely on armorers to keep everyone safe. Expecting actors to also be responsible would be unduly onerous. The system, when it works, works incredibly well. There have only been a handful of firearms accidents on sets. Which is crazy seeing as how almost every movie these days has guns in it somewhere.
The rust shooting had failures at multiple levels but the actor isn't responsible for those failures.
-
-
-
The quartermaster is responsible for the operation of the guns. There never should have been live ammo on the set.
-
I agree with no live ammo. But it's crazy to me that people hop to his defense when it would taken seconds for him to make sure it wasn't loaded. Regardless of everyone else's job. I know whenever I'm handed a firearm, the first thing I do every time is check if it's loaded.
-
Well, that firearm shouldn’t be capable of firing live rounds. It’s a movie prop. There should never be a question if it’s dangerous, because the answer will always be “no”
-
Sure that should always be the case. But this time it wasn't. And because of his actions someone died. As an actor and a producer he should never have even had a chance of firing a live round while they weren't filming, but he did. If the round never hit anybody this would be an entirely different case, unfortunately that's not how it went down.
-
As a producer, a fine. As an actor, nothing.
The quartermaster should get manslaughter and a host of other negligence charges.
-
-
-
-
-
Trusting actors who studied Shakespeare in college to be responsible for determining if a prop is actually a lethal weapon is absurd. That's why there's a trained person on set where that's literally their whole responsibility. I like Baldwin's acting. I've also heard he's shitty to his daughter. I'm not defending him as a person. I'm defending him because he's innocent of this charge. His job was to point something that resembled a gun at someone and pull the trigger. It was someone else's to ensure that would be a safe action.
-
It wasn't even during a scene and even if it was, Alec had violated all four rules of firearm safety for it to happen. Studying Shakespeare in college is tough, learning the four rules is not, don't even need a college degree for that
-
Actors are not and should not be responsible for gun safety on set. You expect a low IQ former drama kid with a coke habit who worships scientology from a country where it's not even legal to own a firearm to be responsible? When every other scene in an action film explicitly requires that they break every single one of the 4 rules of gun safety?
-
If it's during a scene, sure let's break those rules. Once everything has been determined safe by everyone involved. Also yes, no matter who it is, I would expect anyone handed a gun to be responsible with the gun. I've never argued that other people aren't responsible as well, just that Alec should be held responsible for his role. Let's not forget that this actor killed someone, and he should face the same consequences that any average person would.
-
just that Alec should be held responsible for his role
Which is fine, but you've misattributed what the part he played that makes him guilty is. Had it been any other actor they'd not be guilty, as has already been explained actors cannot reasonably be expected to know they've been handed an unsafe weapon by the armorer.
Baldwin was a producer and directly involved in the hiring process of those on the crew. He hired an incompetent armorer AS WELL as misbehaved on set as a producer leading to an unsafe work environment. Baldwin is guilty no matter who pulled that trigger.
-
-
-
If you're bringing in the four rules in a discussion about gun safety on movie sets then you're not arguing in good faith. As an actor you must trust that the armorer is never going to hand you an unsafe gun. If they do, it's on the armorer.
-
-
-
-